Why we are critics.

There may be nothing that is more essential to a democracy than the right to voice dissent. Not all of us have the means or the ability to run for office, but each and every one of us has the ability to speak out about what is important to us. It is that ability to speak out in dissent that allows us to hold our politicians accountable and allows ordinary citizens to bring about real change in our nation, and it gives us all a level of influence that goes far beyond the influence we are able to have in the voting booth. Dissent is never something that is going to be embraced with open arms by all, but while dissent may not always be popular or even correct it is absolutely essential to our democracy.

There are some who are frustrated that many of us on the left have voiced dissent to some of Obama's policies. There are voices of dissent against Obama that I agree with and other voices that I strongly disagree with so I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I believe I can speak for at least a good number of people when I tell you why we speak out against several of Obama's policies.

Those of us on the left who speak out are very different from the critics on the right, we have no desire to see Obama fail and in fact we want nothing more than to see him succeed. We want to see him succeed at ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we want to see him succeed at ensuring that our nation does not torture and those who authorized or participated in acts of torture are held accountable, we want him to succeed at giving equal rights including the right to marry to all people, we want him to succeed at ending the unconstitutional wiretapping program that Bush began, and we want him to succeed at breaking up the largest banks and corporations to ensure that there are no more entities that are too big to fail.

There is so much that we want Obama to succeed at, the problem is that many of us think he is moving in the wrong direction on these issues and we won't see him succeed if he is taking the wrong actions. Of course there are many issues in which Obama is taking the right actions on and those issues need to be acknowledged. I have a very high level of confidence that he will take great strides towards protecting our environment and implementing a sustainable energy policy, and I am quite happy with many of the public works programs he has been putting forward. When Obama is doing right he will have our full support, but when he is doing wrong then we must speak out and we must speak out loudly.

Ultimately this is not about Obama however, this is about the system that has been in place in Washington for many years. Obama happens to be the person who has the most power in managing that system at the current moment however and that makes him the main person we need to put pressure on.

For decades we have watched as both major political parties in this country have worked together in creating a system which benefited the wealthiest Americans while ordinary citizens were being squeezed, we have watched while both Republicans and Democrats have supported deadly military attacks against nations which posed us no threat, we have watched while a bipartisan alliance in Congress voted for torture and illegal wiretapping programs, and we have watched while the bipartisan votes for deregulation of banks and corporations led our country into an economic crisis. The bipartisan disaster was created was certainly not created by Obama alone, and in fact his role in this mess is very minor compared to a lot of other people but he is in a position in which he has a lot of power to undo the mess. In order for him to undo the mess however he is going to have to step on some toes, and he is not only going to have to step on the toes of his political opponents but he is also going to have to step on the toes of some of his own friends. Washington is filled with people who bear responsibility for the mess we are in now and they do not all reside on one side of the aisle, and if we really want change in this country then we need to confront the problems with both parties.

It is crucial that the citizens of this country stand up and speak out about what they believe in, we need to write letters, we need to recruit allies, and we need to get in the streets and speak out about what we believe in. Our country is only a democracy if we make it a democracy, because elections alone do not make us a democracy especially when those elections are so heavily influenced by money. What makes us a democracy is the ability of ordinary citizens to make a difference, the Constitution gives us the power to make that difference but the Constitution is only effective if we stand up and exercise our rights. If you support what Obama is doing then by all means get behind him, but realize that in a democracy not everyone is going to agree with him on all the issues and those of us who have disagreements will not be silent.

Obama alone can't change that System, he needs the People standing behind him demanding that it be changed.

FDR said, "Make me do it." It is up to US.

sw

This system has been in place long before Obama took office and the system needs to be changed drastically. As long as the system is in place we will need people to stand up and bring change to that system no matter who is in office, this is really not about Obama it is about the policies which keep the current system in place.

he's going right along with the system in too many instances.

I don't think anyone expects him to single-handedly "change" the system. But I expect him to fight the system when the system is fucked up.

That would mean NOT propping up the disaster of a banking system we've been operating under. It would mean pushing aggressively for a national single-payer healthcare system when the time is more ripe for it that it's ever been in our history, instead of continuing to let HMOs and Big Pharma shape the discussion. It would mean NOT looking the other way and refusing to prosecute fucking CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

I expect US to fight the system. And if we also have to fight Obama to do it, so be it.

Change doesn't happen from the top down, it has to be from the bottom up. LBJ would have never pushed for Civil Rights legislation if it hadn't been for MLK and the whole Civil Rights movement pushing him from below.

Obama isn't one of us, he's part of the Ruling Class. He has to be pushed just like the rest of the Ruling Class whose intent will always be to preserve the status quo.

sw

Even... no ESPECIALLY when we disagree with his decisions, we want him to succeed.

And on the basis of predictions, the president is ripped a new orifice and the ad hominem attacks fly against anyone that has a problem with it.

In any case, the OP is speaking about the broad principle of dissent, not about defending every single complaint that certain individuals indulge in.

sw

but loaded with all kinds of diffuse angry overlay, the stuff that incites many of the arguments around this place almost always ending with accusations of worship and a preemptive claim of being oppressed. Rinse and repeat.

I see all kinds of loaded and angry language on both sides however, those who accuse all those of expressing disagreement as being "haters" for example is extremely loaded and incites nasty arguments as well.

I am not here to defend the words of every person who voices dissent however, no one agrees with the words of every person who voices dissent because sometimes dissent is wrong. Sometimes our elected officials are wrong as well however, and we need to have people who are willing to stand up and say so.

rational discussion and constructive dialogue.

sw

I do think however that we do need to put pressure on him to do these sorts of things before he actually does them, most activism is "pre-emptive" in that it is meant to put pressure on our officials to do something. Even if a politician says they are going to do something a good activist will continue to put pressure on them until they actually do it.

I don't like the ad hominem attacks and I don't think they get us anywhere, but both sides need to stop using them. I have seen far too many posts on this site accusing people of being "haters" or showing "poutrage" or mocking them by saying "I WANT A PONY!!!". Those are all ad hominem attacks as well, and they have no place in a dialog. I try to refrain from personal attacks and I don't accuse people of being "Obamabots", I would appreciate it if people on the other side of the debate would refrain from ad hominem attacks as well.

Some people seem to have merely transferred their anger and rage that festered during the prior administration to the current administration. Like most human interactions, that tone is really off-putting and almost always ends up on attacks on DUers themselves.

I wish we could have honest vigorous debate around here, but unfortunately people feel compelled to choose up sides, stake out a position, and treat discussion like a backyard brawl. It's ridiculous.

I think that if we are going to have a real discussion however then both sides need to refrain from the ad hominem attacks, neither the words "hater" or "Obamabots" have any place in the discussion if we are going to make progress.

I think you will see that my OP was free from ad hominem attacks however as are the words of many of the critics on this site. We are not responsible for the words of others however, there are some people who I agree with in principle but I also think are terrible at speaking their opinion in a way that gets through to people. I would imagine that if you are being honest with yourself you probably see the same thing on your side, I am sure that you know that calling someone a "hater" does nothing to win them over. We can't be responsible for the words of everyone else though, what we need to do is be able to listen to people who disagree with us and recognize that just because someone may hold the same position as someone else that does not mean that we all embrace their tactics or communication style.

What's my side? I don't have a side, I have an opinion that sometimes people agree with, sometimes not, and that changes issue to issue.

The real truth here is that nobody has a problem with dissent, but some do have a problem with personal attacks used to punctuate diffuse rage.

We are apparently still in middle school here at DU and a good day would be if Johnny doesn't slam his locker in my face or take my lunch money. I had higher hopes for DU as a place for discussion sans browbeating.

I think you are reading too much into those words though, we need people to be on opposing sides to debate the issues sometimes if everyone was always on the same side it would almost certainly lead to some very bad things.

I think people do have a problem with dissent though, in fact if no one had a problem with it then it would not even be dissent. By its very nature dissent is going to ruffle some feathers, and I don't know how you can claim that no one has a problem with it. Some people do not like to hear dissent, especially when it is aimed at their position.

I have a problem with personal attacks too as I have already mentioned, but calling someone a "hater" for expressing dissent is no different than calling someone and "Obamabot". Let's not pretend that it is only the people who voice dissent that engage in personal attacks.

I can only speak for myself but I disagree with President Obama on many issues (immunity for the telecoms, healthcare insurance program, accelerating in Afghanistan, many of his appointments, bank bail-outs, etc., etc.)

The difference is that I don't express my views on those issues with inflammatory rhetoric and flat-out rage that almost always gets on other DU'ers. In fact, the epithet of "worshipper" is often hurled my way because I don't go off on Obama the way others do even though I often agree with them - and that is IMO a bizarre reaction to tone over substance.

Again, it's not dissent, it's the way it's framed and delivered, bombastically, sometimes childishly with the urge to choose up sides. That's the problem.

Peace out.

Some long-time DUers have been banned for using phrases like "obot." However, nobody has been banned yet for expressing too much support for Obama.

On the other hand, almost every thread expressing a criticism of Obama - no matter how politely and calmly worded - is immediately filled with posts designed to shut down dissent. Phrases such as "sorry you didn't get your pony" and "poutrage" and "cunt" and "we know that you want Obama to fail" are designed to intimidate people and prevent them from saying anything remotely critical of the president.

When messages and posts from Admins are castigating people for "criticizing our president" and posters are allowed to call others "cunts" with impunity, we have a problem.

nuff said....

...not his, the democratic party's, or anyone else's. my definition begins with: prosecute bush/cheney, inc. and if you can't actually put them in jail, at the very least expose and denounce all their crimes and show the people why they have been so ruinous to the country . he may "succeed" at everything else, but if he fails at that he is a failure to me and, i predict, a failure to the nation in perpetuity.

don't want to see President Obama fail.

It's the ugly deadenders who never have a shred of support for our President who try to masquerade as "critics" that are the object of my derision.

There are of course Freepers who do post here, but I think they exist on both sides of the debate. I think there are some who post on here acting as overzealous Obama supporters in an effort to make other Obama supporters look bad and there are others who post things on here that are very critical of Obama, although those ones often end up tombstoned pretty fast.

Before you dismiss critics as not having a shred of support for Obama however I would suggest you ask them about specific policies that most DUers tend to agree on. Do they support Obama's efforts to move towards renewable energy? Do they support Obama's efforts to create jobs through public works programs? Those are questions that get little if any debate on this site because virtually everyone on this site supports Obama's efforts in those areas. I think if you would ask some of the people that you consider "deadenders" about these sorts of issues you might find that many of them probably are more supportive of Obama on many things than you may realize.

minds when all they do is rage on President Obama and never post on the positive threads except to offer more rage.

Best to avoid it altogether in my opinion. People post or don't post on threads for so many reasons that it would give me fits if I went after everyone who bothered me in this regard. Best to just put people on ignore who chronically get on your nerves. If you think they are telling lies, then by all means keep them off ignore and counter them with facts. :)

say but I can recognize disruptors when I see them and I will hit that alert button.

Hitting the alert button is always advised. I do it often myself.

This ought to be stickied to the top of the forum. Thank you Bjorn Against.

No one is stifling dissent, and I think everyone here knows the definition.

If you think you're being censored, consult the admins, but I've seen plenty of posts critical of Obama or his administration or their policies still standing without censorship.

My $.02? I think at the core, people are bugged by the way some respond to their comments. People may not like what you (or I) have to say. They may react strongly. But they don't have to be engaged if it isn't going to head in a constructive direction.

If someone has decided that a criticism of Obama meets their definition of 'bashing' rather than 'dissent', they push back...but there's no obligation to acknowledge that. You can walk away from an ad hominem attack and leave it to wither on the vine.

I do think however that when there are numerous threads being made to attack critics of Obama's policies then there needs to be some threads to defend critics as well.

As far as stifling dissent goes, believe me there are attempts to stifle dissent all the time. I just got back from attending a meeting in which members of MOVE spoke, and four members of the RNC 8 were in the audience. These are people who have had police raid their homes with machine guns drawn because they were engaged in political activities that the police did not approve of, in the case of MOVE the police even bombed the MOVE residence and killed several people including children. Of course I am by no means suggesting that is the equivalent of what is happening at DU right now, but I think it is important to recognize that dissent has been stifled for years and unless we stand up for the right to dissent it will continue to be stifled. My post was not merely aimed at DU, because believe me I run into people who want the left to shut up all the time.

not much is served by 5-10 vanity posts a day by different posters saying the same thing about imaginary "stifling of dissent". Speak your mind, state your positions and prepare to defend them if challenged or if alternate views are offered. Or you can choose not to defend them, its all good either way.

You can call this a "vanity post" if you want, but there are certainly a number of posts on this site going up every day attacking critics and I am offering something to try and balance those posts with the other perspective.

Just do it and stop trying to pat yourselves on the back for it!

Long-time DUers are being banned for criticizing Obama, while others are getting away with posting habits that routinely break published DU rules.

My message to DU management: Either enforce the rules evenly or publish new rules (as you've hinted you're going to do) that lay out the new approach. If the "new approach" is that everyone on DU must support Obama unquestioningly, then a lot of us will be out of here. In any case, let's put the rules on the table or enforce the ones we have.

dissent is being quashed at DU.

No it isn't. The "dissenters" don't want to be disagreed with, and any disagreement is termed "quashing."

Long-time DUers are being banned for criticizing Obama,

Examples?

The behavior we are talking about is chronic bullying, not "disagreement".

:shrug:

I'd love to see the names and the offending threads. Until then, they're just myths.

just forget it.

:shrug:

:shrug:

I wish you the best of luck on your journey to enlightenment.

Yardwork was a mod here. I also saw what happened here.

Suggesting that a person is lying is against the rules.

Suggesting that a person is lying is against the rules.

1. No it isn't.
2. I'm not suggesting that, anyway. I'm suggesting you've misinterpreted something.

" Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Oh, well at least you are keeping the thread kicked. It's gotten a few dozen more views today! :thumbsup: Thank you.

Sorry we can't resolve the difficulty. I won't PM you if you are suggesting that I am at fault for something. You are making that claim. I'm not feeling obliging.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar

Haven't done that

and do not call another member's post a lie

Haven't done that, either.

You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Hell, I haven't even done THAT!

wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-20-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. PM me with them, then.

:shrug:

I'd love to see the names and the offending threads. Until then, they're just myths.

:shrug:

A myth is something unproven yet believed in. Jesus Christ, for example.

Take our word or not. Believe it is a myth, or not. I don't actually care. You were the one who asked for examples because you were credulous that such a thing could happen. Sorry you don't like the answer. :)

This thread has gained another 100 views in the last 30 minutes. Thank you, you're a trooper.

:eyes:

Are you hoping I'll be scared that more people will read the OP so I'll quit responding in the thread? That's "bullying." That's "quashing dissent." :)

:) I'm warning you I have the day off. I can keep this kicked for hours.

Are you hoping I'll be scared that more people will read the OP so I'll quit responding in the thread? Are you hoping that by telling me you have the day off to keep the thread kicked that I'll quit responding? That's "bullying." That's "quashing dissent." :)

It's an awesome OP. Please, keep responding!

What makes it a good question, can you can take me at my word? I'm not quashing, I'd be thrilled if you answered.

... they refuse to corroborate with anything substantial. Who would trust that?

Then there are some who divert away from providing it, pretend to be bullied, claim they're being called a liar, suggest you find the evidence yourself - anything to get out of actually proving their claim.

:shrug:

Stop pretending that you don't know that it's against DU rules to provide the "evidence" that you demand. If you're really interested, seek it out yourself.

AND being defensive about. Why, If I didn't know better I'd think you're making it all up.

"mythologizers". :shrug: It's just one of those funny situations caused by the rules here. If you'd been nice about asking I probably would have PM'd you. Why reward rudeness?

I was very nice. You got defensive from the get-go.

:) I was stating facts about the rules in my first reply to you. If you call that "getting defensive" than :shrug: don't know what to tell you. Why would you believe a PM if you aren't inclined to believe an anonymous person on the internet in public?

:)

I was stating facts about the rules in my first reply to you

Yes you were, I'm still trying to figure out why since I didn't break any.

Why would you believe a PM if you aren't inclined to believe an anonymous person on the internet in public?

I would hope a PM would include a link to an offending thread that got someone banned.

You are right, don't trust anyone. Probably better for you. Funny old thing life...

This is like one of those old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. Did you read those as a kid? I loved them.

Whee!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

DU Administrator, EarlG's message includes this instructive paragraph:

But the bottom line is that it's our job to facilitate discussion here. If you are running around repeatedly referring to other members of this community as "cheerleaders" or "bots", or even using "Obama supporters" as a derogatory term - then you will eventually get into trouble. You don't have to agree with everything Barack Obama does to be a member of DU, but if you can't call yourself an "Obama supporter" then one can't help but wonder what you're doing here.

So, apparently calling DUers, "Freeper" "PUMA" "Whiner","Poutrager","Tea-bagger" "crybaby" "HillaryBot" is A-okay if you sling it at someone you think is making a criticism of the president , his staff, or their actions.
You can go on and on about "wanting ponies", But calling an obama supporter a cheer-leader can get your ass banned.

Fair and Balanced. Yes indeed.

"If you want to remain a member of DU, please remember that members come to DU as a safe haven to get away from people who are looking to tear down Democrats. Please stop your disruptive posting behavior on DU, there are plenty of other sites out on the internet for you to post this type of material."

She was a guest in someone's home and was asked to follow the house rules - which she declined to do.

Why are posters who repeatedly call others "cunts" or constantly go into the GLBT forum to taunt gay DUers or respond to every mildly critical post about Obama with shouts of "poutrage!" or "we know that you want Obama to fail" allowed to stay?

That's the question before us.

... just as my exception with the left claiming Obama and Clinton "raped" this country.

The latter, however, should be expected. It's a Democratic board. :shrug: The rules state, "People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor."

The former DUer in question repeatedly and willfully broke the rules and engaged in rude, anti-social behavior even after being warned. In fact, I'll float the possibility the former DUer, after being warned, purposely dared the admins to ban her with her actions to make herself a martyr of sorts.

However, there are many of us who feel that the rules - as written - are not being applied evenly and, in fact, DU is becoming a board where criticism of the president is discouraged, mainly by allowing bullies to run the playground.

It's not too late to change this, however.

words like "cunt" should be grounds for instant suspension or banning. Just my opinion.

But I see the "dissenters" as the bullies.

and the person who calls female posters "cunts" on a fairly regular basis is still here.

Did I not just say calling people "cunts" should be grounds for instant suspension or banning? Why, yes I did.

But for so-called "dissenters" to come to a Democratic board, hurl accusations at a Democratic president, and then try to guilt people into being quiet by calling them "bullies" for disagreeing is more of that bizarro netroots logic.

It would be like you and I in a fist fight and you claiming you have the right to punch me but I don't have the right to hit back.

For so-called self proclaimed defenders of a President who does not want or need this type of defense, it shows over reaction and fear.

Dissent in regards to policy is only equivalent to "hurling accusations at a Democratic president," if one is unable to defend those policies intellectually. Because if you are able to defend or explain policy differences then there is no need for ad hominem attacks.

As soon as the "dissenters" can make a rational case based on facts, void of knee-jerk reactions from sensationalized headlines, and not run and hide every time someone asks for a link to verify their claims, then they'll be worthy of having an intellectual conversation with.

or that others can't be controlled?

Defined in my previous post.

>>As soon as the "dissenters" can make a rational case based on facts, void of knee-jerk reactions from sensationalized headlines, and not run and hide every time someone asks for a link to verify their claims, then they'll be worthy of having an intellectual conversation with. - wyldwolf<<


As soon as the "dissenters" can make a rational case based on facts

No argument there.

This next part is where you strain credibility and lapse into subjective, prejorative, interpretation.

"void of knee-jerk reactions from sensationalized headlines"

I guess you mean "devoid" rather than, "void."

This is a subjective spin and pejorative and a sign of a priori disrespect and a biased point of view.

"and not run and hide every time someone asks for a link to verify their claims"

What kind of link? Specify.

Link to an article or news media source? That's double bind, as according to you, a newspaper or journalist source is just "sensationalized headlines."

Or are you referring to a link about another thread here at DU? In which case you still haven't read the rules, have you?

"then they'll be worthy of having an intellectual conversation with."

Is that ending with the preposition: "with"?

Anyway, as much fun as this is, you just failed. No one needs to be worthy to converse with you or any other fellow human being. Elitism is so, well, elitist.

"Worthy" or "worthiness" is simply not a progressive idea.

You are not credible in your statement and assertion wyldwolf, that you would treat dissenting opinions with respect. You tipped your hand my friend.

Look up and see the issues mentioned by the OP. They are concerns that have been voiced as areas of progressive policy that we as Democrats have the right and duty to monitor.

You are defending a man, a President, that does not need this type of defense. He does not encourage this type of lame defense, with arbitrary amateur criteria that slip from a good premise, namely, a fact based discussion and lapses into childish mud slinging, like "knee jerk," and "sensationalized headlines" and "run and hide" and demanding that fellow progressives be worthy of your reply. :rofl:

**If you don't like an OP ignore it.

**If you disagree with an OP, state why.

Save the rest of this none sense for some other venue and stop defending that which does not need your defense.

The OP was spot on and is in good company.

Our country is only a democracy if we make it a democracy, because elections alone do not make us a democracy especially when those elections are so heavily influenced by money. What makes us a democracy is the ability of ordinary citizens to make a difference, the Constitution gives us the power to make that difference but the Constitution is only effective if we stand up and exercise our rights. If you support what Obama is doing then by all means get behind him, but realize that in a democracy not everyone is going to agree with him on all the issues and those of us who have disagreements will not be silent. - Bjorn Against


This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.”
- President Barack Obama
Election victory speech
Victory speech in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois (4 November 2008)

"We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on."
-The Audacity of Hope (2006)

I guess you mean "devoid" rather than, "void." This is a subjective spin and pejorative and a sign of a priori disrespect and a biased point of view.

Oh, a correction of grammar or word use. This is almost a "Fallacy Of Precondemnation." But, yeah, the left's tendency to overreact to headlines before the whole story is read or detailed is almost a daily occurrence

What kind of link? Specify.

A link to a news or reference source

That's double bind, as according to you, a newspaper or journalist source is just "sensationalized headlines."

Your statement there is another example. You take one part of what I say and emphasize it. :rofl: no... A link to an actual news or reference source, not a reaction to a headline. I think you know the difference - you're just trying to appear smarter than you are.

Or are you referring to a link about another thread here at DU? In which case you still haven't read the rules, have you?

A misrepresentation. I'm referring to a link to any source in given discussion that gives credibility to a point - something "dissenter" try their best to avoid giving. But even If I were discussing this incident in this thread exclusively, that would not be against the rules - unless you care to point out the specific rule passage.

s that ending with the preposition: "with"?

There you go again - trying to draw attention away from the point by pointing out some grammatical error... :rofl:

Anyway, as much fun as this is, you just failed.

You are not credible in your statement and assertion bluedawg12, that you would wave away a call for evidence in ANY situation simply because a "dissenter" should not be question. You tipped your hand my friend.

Look up and see the issues mentioned by the OP. They are concerns that have been voiced as areas of progressive policy that we as Democrats have the right and duty to monitor.

But you don't the right to not be questioned or argued with about them - which is what you and several others in this thread believe.

"You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk."

I'm inspired by your example, truly. You are a net citizen we can all look up to. :thumbsup:

We're talking about what is happening here on DU.

The poster who calls women "cunts" hasn't been banned. The posts hadn't even been deleted last time I looked. People are being banned for being rude about Obama, but other kinds of rudeness are tolerated - even praised - by management.

Worthiness is now a totally subjective movable beast.

:)

Now it can be out in the open and not on some forum where only those who want to read it go.

I say if you want to knock Obama, it is your right as an American. Just do it and don't make a big show of it.

I am beginning to question some of the things I hear he is doing or will do. I don't feel I have to support everything he does and I don't feel I will be banished from DU if I do post some disapproval. I just won't make a whole thread telling everyone why I feel like I do.

Instead of attacking somebody for posting an opinion on an opinion board, why not just ignore it? If you don't know what's behind the post, and aren't interested in finding out, why not just ignore the thread and read something else?

You seem to be very invested in denying somebody else's perceptions of a problem. Nobody's asking you to agree, but why attack others for expressing their opinion? We're not denying your right to an opinion.

Just about every day someone has to get on his/soap box and moan and groan about being attacked for knocking Obama. It should come to an end some time or is it going to go on for his whole term?

Just state your criticism and be done with it!

No one is "patting themselves on the back" for anything.

No one has a "soap box."

No one has "moaning and groaning."

No one is "knocking Obama."

With your closing shot: "STFU." "Just state your criticism and be done with it!"

Be done with what? There are many issues that will surface and will bear scurtiny, for the next four, or hopefully, eight years. Don't expect everyone to agree at all times.

It's not any one person, a number of posts have appeared on a variety of topics.

This has been said before, it is not President Obama as a person or as a President, but his policies are fair game for discussion. He ran on a Democratic ticket and made progressive promises and progressives are evaluating his peformance.

I don't think anyone here is asking for people to sit back and say nothing, what majority of
folks here are saying is be constructive in critiquing, all of us are not going to agree on
what the President does and doesn't do, but we can be constructive instead of providing talking
points for reich wing media, which is what most here wants to do.

Throwing fits over third party information on Obama not supporting holding those accountable
for torture is hogwash, screaming for Obama to prosecute those responsible for wiretapping now
and to execute Bush and Cheney for crimes they have committed is another hogwash, why? because
the government does not operate like that.

We, well (I) don't expect President Obama to turn things around overnight on most of the crimes
Bush and his cabal committed, it takes time and being a Democrat I have to understand that he is
doing his best to address these things and yes it might not be to my liking of him putting it on
hold or allowing the wheels of government to play its role...nah...I have to satisfy my bent up
ego and demand he addresses these issues now otherwise this is not the reason I voted for him
and all that BS noise that follows.

is itself unconstructive criticism. You probably can't see my post but I thought I would point that out. You have been making serious accusations for a few days impugning people's motives. Be the change.

here on DU, out of everything I said you could only pick out the reich wing media premise,
c'mon, you can do better than that.

:shrug: Would you like to write all my replies for me? Should I submit them to you first before I reply? Are you claiming there is another way to take that statement?

Many of us disagree.

if you can confuse me making reference to Bush's 3 years of none criticism then this
just goes to show how you are missing the point.

On that note, you can continue to believe what you want to believe.

Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr-18-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. A true Liberal/Progressive

would not be advocating accountability after a President has spent short of three
months in office.

It took three fuckin years before people could even utter any disagreement with what Bush
was doing, and don't tell me it was because of 9/11, I'm not buying that BS.

If people can give Bush 3 years why not give Obama at least a year before we start looking
for mistakes or starts playing the blame game. The reason why I said its a Republican talking
point is simple, they have nothing to run on but to see an Obama administration fail.

Now, respond...

and yes its common here for people to misunderstand ones opinion, even though I have explained
the reason why I stated that you're still trying to make me feel guilty for stating the facts.

Not gonna work, OBAMA.HAS.BEEN.IN.OFFICE.FOR.LESS.THAN.THREE.MONTHS. and here you are still fretting
from me making a comparison with Bush.

I have no time for your petty augmented arguments, I just don't.

From Merriam Webster's on-line dictionary:
dis·sent
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈsent\
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin dissentire, from dis- + sentire to feel — more at sense
Date:
15th century

1 : to withhold assent 2 : to differ in opinion


From a randomly chosen google match:
"Constructive criticism is criticism kindly meant that has a goal of improving some area of another’s person’s life or work."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-constructive-criticism.htm

In other words... dissent is a disagreement of opinion. Constructive criticism is criticism meant to improve one's approach to something.
Constructive criticism does not admit the option of the Whole Whatever It Might Be being wrong. It only admits of efforts to improve the Whole Whatever It Might Be.

So, what you are actually implying is that We all have to get on board with everything Obama does, and the only contributions any of us can make are little tidbits of tactics meant to make Obama more effective at accomplishing whatever he, in his wisdom, chooses to do.

That would, in fact, be a stifling of opinions...

our job is to provide the necessary tools for a Democratic President to succeed, dissent is for
the opposing side to do their job not us, them doing their job as an opposing party, thats why America
has a two party system, some might disagree, but thats besides the point.

A Democrat can provide constructive criticism for their party leader to take another look at their
proposals, not dissent, which is outright opposing to anything and everything the President does.

Some wants the rest that don't agree with them to annoyingly show dissent to a Democratic President
when these same few individuals allows Bush's administration to carry freedom card of
destroying America, thats my personal view and I have been here long enough to see it.

I mean... really?

"not dissent, which is outright opposing to anything and everything the President does" Wha'? Did you not read the definition you just responded to?
Dissent is a difference of opinion. To somehow re-define it into "outright opposing anything and everything" is... well it is to use another phrase, and call it by the "name" of dissent.
In other words, the word, in fact does not mean what you think it means.

I wasn't actually trying to win that point, I meant to show you what you were implying, thinking that it might not be an intended implication.

Considering this response... I'm left to conclude that this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPEV6twzxmE
is actually your position on the matter.

If so, I will have to dissent... and in this instance your own personal definition might in fact be applicable.

ofcourse it can, but dissent can also cause people to disagree with anything and everything
the Leader of the Party says and do.

I am one of the people accused of dissenting the wrong way and harming the president - as much or more so than anyone here.

What would satisfy you? What would you have me do?

How do I know what I can and cannot say? I know that I am not trying to harm the president, but there is of course no way to defend oneself from that charge. It is not possible. I know that I am saying the same things I have always said. Why is it different now?

You cannot expect people to run their ideas past you before they post, so that you can determine whether or not it is the right kind of criticism, can you? And by what standards are ideas to be judged?

You have your opinion - as expressed in this post. I do not agree. What makes your opinion the correct opinion about this, and mine the incorrect opinion? You are asking us to assume that your take is correct, and to use that as the basis for discussion about this. How could we do that?



...

I would not claim that superiority, also, I know its not that hard to be constructive in
critiquing some of the decisions the President makes that we don't agree on, as long as
people are using facts instead of third party information.

Furthermore, I am not jumping on anyones private opinion, my ego is not that bloated, but it
is my right to disagree....and yours too, we can have differences of opinions, sure, it is
a Democratic community which means we all could agree to disagree, also, we should be
striving for one thing...which is helping to elect the right officials for the job and holding
them accountable, at the same time refraining ourselves from showing dissent which should
be the job of the opposition party.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seriously show me one quote in which I said people could not criticize my position. Just one.

most thoughtful posts here too late to rec. At least I can kick it back up so others have a chance to read it.